Re: virus scanning by squid?

I guess I would argue the following:

Agree
   1) A modular squid would be a good idea, although the present beast
is very good and to my eye highly tailorable

Disagree
   1) I presently run Web servers using EMWAC on NT, IIS on NT, NCSA on
UNIX, Apache on UNIX, and CERN on UNIX. I dont find the differences in
configuration to be a big issue. Basically you configure these beasts
once, and..... Trying to force all all things into a single size hole
is generally hard on both the things and the hole. The squid
configuration is designed for tailoring web cacheing/proxy servers, the
NCSA configuration is for confgiruing a simple web server; why would you
expect the structures to be the same?

Peter Lister wrote:
>
> Peter Marelas wrote:
> > I agree with you, squid needs to become modular. Alot like the modular
> > capabilities of apache. This will allow other developers to write plug-ins
> > without having to know the ins and outs of the src tree.
>
> Modular squid would also permit the interesting idea of building much
> of Squid's functionality into an Apache module. There is a proxy
> module with Apache; although most of Apache seems quite well written,
> I'm wondering why one would use that as opposed Squid - the only
> reason I can think of is "less software to run and look after".
>
> Although I'm a big Squid fan, I don't particularly enjoy coping with
> the differences between Squid and Apache configuration. I'd be
> *really* happy if I could combine the functionality with tcl.
>
> Peter Lister Email: p.lister@cranfield.ac.uk
> Computer Centre, Cranfield University Voice: +44 1234 754200 ext 2828
> Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL UK Fax: +44 1234 751814
> The more we look at structures of trust, the more we realise that
> democracy and subversion are closely related. (Ross Anderson)

-- 
Regards.
Don Rolph WD3 MS10-13 (508)-236-1263
mailto:w-rolph@ds.mc.ti.com